# Forget Trump: Impeach Mitch McConnell **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 31, 2019, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833 "2019-05-31T15:32:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![John\_Bredin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@John\_Bredin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Bredin)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/161 "2019-06-04T23:36:57Z")
Also, I was responding to the facile “suggestion” to win elections. It doesn’t do quite as much good when one party is willing to ignore long-time political norms and obstruct the [del]opposing party[/del] enemy to the limits not of the Constitutional text but what they feel the Supremes won’t review under the political-question doctrine. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/162 "2019-06-04T23:40:15Z")
All kinds of Republican liars went on the Sunday shows spewing their “just not in the last year” bullshit. Not a one of them had the guts to say “fuck you, we’re just not going to do it, and it’s not against the law”. Why were they so afraid that they had to make up bull-fucking-shit for the Sunday shows? I know, because they knew they had thrown honor and dignity to the curb. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/163 "2019-06-05T00:08:13Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > …I’m not sure if you would leave that possibility open under the guise of ‘try anything’. You should get to know us better, then you would not suffer such dread. We of the left are, for the most part, sane and reasonable people. Except for Berkeley, perhaps. And I can’t help but notice that despite the bountiful acrid insights you offer in criticism of those who really, _really_ don’t like Mitch…you don’t really so much defend _him_ as assault _us_. The press of time, perhaps? You were too busy to outline all the splendid examples he has shown us, in terms of compromise and mutual accord. So very refreshing after the iron fist of Obama! Now that the stifling standards are set aside, the outdated “rules” as flexible as over-cooked spaghetti. I am left to believe that you dislike his enemies so much, you are inclined to be generous about his failings? Or is it that his splendid triumphs are too numerous? Certainly he has given great support and comfort to Donald, of House Harkonnen, Worst of his Name… So, there’s that. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/164 "2019-06-05T00:43:50Z")
> [@John\_Bredin](#): > > Obama won an election to the presidency, which under the Constitution comes with the power to appoint Supreme Court justices, with no proviso or limit that the President can’t do so in the last year of office. However, one Senator pulled a rule out of his turtle shell that the President doesn’t have that power for the last year of his term. > > … Obama won the power to _nominate_ judges. Senator McConnell (and the Senate Republicans collectively) won the power to _confirm_ them or not. Nobody prevented Obama from using his power to nominate. He did. He was just unhappy when the Senate decided to decline to provide their advice and consent and confirm his nominee. That is the Senate’s prerogative, upsetting as some of you found it. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/165 "2019-06-05T00:50:50Z")
It’s awesome that you speak of it like it’s just one of those things that happens. When in American history has it happened before? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/166 "2019-06-05T01:06:29Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > It’s awesome that you speak of it like it’s just one of those things that happens. When in American history has it happened before? A few times but mostly over a hundred years ago, iirc. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/167 "2019-06-05T01:07:57Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > It’s awesome that you speak of it like it’s just one of those things that happens. When in American history has it happened before? How does whether or it happened before or not affect the validity of the argument? ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/168 "2019-06-05T01:08:35Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > A few times but mostly over a hundred years ago, iirc. No really, I mean when? If you don’t have an answer, give Ditka a few minutes to google something. I was asking him. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/169 "2019-06-05T01:10:05Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > How does whether or it happened before or not affect the validity of the argument? Because that would show that is _not_ just one of those things that happens. It was right there in my question to Ditka, Plain as day, nothing hidden. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/170 "2019-06-05T01:21:34Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > It’s awesome that you speak of it like it’s just one of those things that happens. When in American history has it happened before? **Iggy** has had a series of very good posts on the subject. You really ought to read them all, but I’m not going to take the time to link them all for you when just one will suffice: > [@Suppose Ginsburg instead of Scalia, and (moderate) instead of Garland](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-ginsburg-instead-of-scalia-and-moderate-instead-of-garland/804869/10): > > As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, you are not entitled to your own facts. > > The Senate refusing to even take a vote on a SCOTUS nominee is not unprecedented. Three times the Senate treated nominees by Millard Fillmore in such fashion. > > Tyler had such trouble getting his nominees through that he resorted to re-nominating a candidate, Reuben Walworth, whose prior nomination had been dealt with in the Seante by tabling the matter and never getting and up or down vote. When Tyler again nominated Walworth the Senate just ignored the nomination, not even a vote to table. > > A majority of the unsuccessful nominations to the high court never got an up or down vote in the Senate. Their nominations failed for a variety of reasons, including inaction by the Senate. > > Just go read this thread. [Page three post #149](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=817897&highlight=unprecedented&page=3) is where names and dates of such ill treated nominees are laid out. > > We keep going back to this so often that we need a damn Sticky. Garland was, IMHO, treated in a shitty manner. But it was not unprecedented that the Senate did not vote on his nomination. Amazingly enough politicians have been doing shitty things for a very long time. The present set of Senators are just recycling ideas that have been used before. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/171 "2019-06-05T01:28:40Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > No really, I mean when? If you don’t have an answer, give Ditka a few minutes to google something. I was asking him. I don’t feel like researching it, atm. But you sure seemed to think it was a winning rhetorical question and I was merely hinting that you research and refine it yourself before you use it in your next internet argument. But now I see HD has linked to a previous discussion where it was mentioned. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/172 "2019-06-05T01:35:09Z")
No, I wanted an answer and Ditka linked to one. You still have not. Thanks? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/173 "2019-06-05T02:02:09Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > …He was just unhappy when the Senate decided to decline to provide their advice and consent and confirm his nominee. That is the Senate’s prerogative, upsetting as some of you found it. What was the vote when the Senate declined to provide their advice and consent? I had the impression that had Garland been put forward, he would likely be confirmed. But this is not so? The overwhelming disgust in the Senate for this blackguard, scoundrel and despoiler of maidens…no way? You seem anxious to give the impression that the Senate acted as a body, a discrete entity. But Shirley close to half of that august assembly wanted to vote for Mr Garland, maybe some others. There is no math, new or old, wherein “about half” equals “unanimous”. And I will not sit idly by and watch Millard Fillmore dragged through the mud! There are decent limits! Limits! ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/174 "2019-06-05T02:02:32Z")
Whatever buddy. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/175 "2019-06-05T03:33:55Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > Because that would show that is _not_ just one of those things that happens. It was right there in my question to Ditka, Plain as day, nothing hidden. And prior to the 1960s, men didn’t walk on the moon. So what? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/176 "2019-06-05T04:15:47Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Imagine if — one by one — enough Senators had looked into the camera and said to Obama on national television, “we’ll vote against anyone you pick. Have we now made that clear? We’re telling you not to bother, since we won’t consent.” And then Obama nominates a guy, and the Senators say, “just to make sure: you get that we’re going to chuckle while going through the motions, and that the answer is going to be ‘no’, right? You’re not some dimwit hereby getting encouraged to try this a second and a third time? Because, on the off chance that you _are_ that foolish, we’re each going to walk up to a podium to slowly and patiently explain that you were told what’d happen, and that it’s now happening, and that the answer will always be ‘no’. Maybe it’ll get through to you? No? Do you need it even slower, and in smaller words?” Sure, if 50 senators had gone in public and announced that they would toe the party line as defined by McConnell, then Obama would know that any nominees would be voted down. That’s fine, but that is not what happened. One senator made the decision that no other senators would have to make that declaration. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > So any means are justified so long as it keeps the other side from winning? Do you realize who this sounds like? Yeah, it sounds a bit like Mitch McConnell. Are you saying that playing the game his way is wrong, or that it is only wrong if democrats do it? > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Oops, I was wrong about that – I guess “quorum” is defined in the Constitution. Still worth a try, since the alternative is losing without a fight. > > “Try anything” without violence, IMO. And I see no reason to believe that your view of “the rules” is any better than mine or anyone else’s, at least based on this argument-free paragraph. Trying stuff like this (assuming a similar scenario to the Garland nomination) could result in nothing worse than McConnell winning. When the worst-case scenario is the status quo, then that sounds like something worth considering, when the alternative is losing without a fight. This is brainstorming level. At brainstorming level, considering everything is valid and useful. At the actual “try” level, some of these ideas may not seem practical or beneficial. But still, words on a message board bind no one to an action. Throw out ideas, serious or un-serious, and maybe we’ll find something that can work. I prose considering a herd of ponies to be a quorum, and then wishing them into the senate chambers. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > A better-crafted system would make it harder or impossible for bad people to do this kind of thing. The rules could clearly state that the Senate is required to vote on nominees, for example, within 60 days, or something like that, and a lack of a vote = implied consent. Should a sane group ever get enough power to do so, it seems the best way would be that a minority, say either 34% or 40%, can force a vote to the floor. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The system also permits, even encourages, amendment when such troubles with unworthy trustees appear. It isn’t broken. Unfortunately, those very un(trust)worthy trustees are in charge of that very amendment system. > [@CarnalK](#): > > Maybe your stupid idea cobbled together with surprising ignorance of the legal framework could work. Maybe! We got nothing to lose by trying stupid ignorant strategies! So says iiandyiiii. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Do you know what “opportunity cost” means? Yes, the opportunity cost of doing nothing is authoritarianism. This isn’t hyperbole, or limited to this situation or here and now, this is always the case with any democracy. The price of self governance is vigilance over those to whom we entrust power. As to how you meant it, in that there is a cost to doing things that excludes other, I may point out that there are quite a number of people and organizations with quite a bit of resources to try different tactics. We can walk and chew gum, while juggling. Don’t you worry yourself about us exhausting our resources in the fight against wannabee fascists, until they are able to actually shut down or subvert the elections, we stand a chance, and we will never stop fighting. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Based on this thread, it sounds like you’ve just described the Democratic Party. By “clever ways”, do you mean having the plurality of the people on our side? > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > [“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation” - Chuck Schumer, 2007](https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146) > > “wish granted” - Senator Mitch McConnell, 2016, probably We can argue whether or not Schumer should have lobbied other democrats to vote against a potential Bush nominee (personally, I am/was against it), but at no time did he say that there should not be a vote. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > The “proviso or limit” is that he can only do it with the consent of enough Senators. And, if he _doesn’t_ get that consent in the last year of office, then he can’t do so. So if Obama doesn’t actually get that consent in his last year of office, but Trump actually _does,_ well, then — what? Why should it matter that the guy mentioning this is sipping tea while just sort of being accurate about stuff? And how do we know that there would not have been the consent of enough senators without holding a vote of those senators? If they had all gone on public record as being against any Obama nominee, then you may have a point. As they very specifically chose not to go on public record, then I do not agree to your assumptions as to what would have happened had the vote gone to the floor. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Obama won the power to _nominate_ judges. Senator McConnell (and the Senate Republicans collectively) won the power to _confirm_ them or not. But it was not the Senate Republicans who chose to confirm or not, it was just one Senator. > [@](#): > > Nobody prevented Obama from using his power to nominate. He did. He was just unhappy when the Senate decided to decline to provide their advice and consent and confirm his nominee. Did you just admit that the Senate did not provide advice and consent, as required by the Constitution? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/177 "2019-06-05T05:49:47Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > … Yeah, it sounds a bit like Mitch McConnell. Are you saying that playing the game his way is wrong, or that it is only wrong if democrats do it? … I’m saying it’s wrong to condemn his tactics and then turn around and adopt them. It’s hypocritical: “it’s so awful that Senator McConnell plays hardball but we should play hardball”. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > … But it was not the Senate Republicans who chose to confirm or not, it was just one Senator. … No, it was a majority. If the majority had wished otherwise, they could have forced a vote over Senator McConnell’s objections. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > … Did you just admit that the Senate did not provide advice and consent, as required by the Constitution? No, they aren’t “required by the Constitution” to provide their advice and consent (it says the President “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the Supreme Court”). “advice and consent” is a term of art that amounts to “confirm”. The Senate declined to confirm Obama’s nominee. That’s what I “admitted”, and no, the Constitution does not require them to confirm him, nor does it require them to vote on him, and nor does it require them to hold a hearing. They can choose to take no official action on a nominee, which amounts to withholding their “advice and consent” / not confirming the nominee. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/178 "2019-06-05T07:25:26Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m saying it’s wrong to condemn his tactics and then turn around and adopt them. It’s hypocritical: “it’s so awful that Senator McConnell plays hardball but we should play hardball”. No, what is hypocritical is expecting a different standard from your oposition thanyou hold yourself to. You kick in the balls once, and I tell you that’s against the rules and not do do it again. You tell me it’s not against the rules, and kick me in the balls again, then I’m gonna take a “look” at this rule book, and if eye gouging isn’t “against the rules”, then it’s fair game. You either play the game in good faith, or you give up the high ground for complaining about fairness. McConnell’s move was not in good faith, and you know it. > [@](#): > > No, it was a majority. If the majority had wished otherwise, they could have forced a vote over Senator McConnell’s objections. Right signing on to cross the aisles and work with the minority in order to craft procedure to go over their Leader’s head has the same political cost as casting a vote for a nominee. > [@](#): > > No, they aren’t “required by the Constitution” to provide their advice and consent (it says the President “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the Supreme Court”). “advice and consent” is a term of art that amounts to “confirm”. The Senate declined to confirm Obama’s nominee. That’s what I “admitted”, and no, the Constitution does not require them to confirm him, nor does it require them to vote on him, and nor does it require them to hold a hearing. They can choose to take no official action on a nominee, which amounts to withholding their “advice and consent” / not confirming the nominee. Oh yeah, if they want to play games with our country, they can choose to interpret their obligations in such a manner. There’s quite a bit of creative interpretation that goes on in order to undermine democracy for their personal gain going on these days, I see. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/179 "2019-06-05T08:01:43Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > … Right signing on to cross the aisles and work with the minority in order to craft procedure to go over their Leader’s head has the same political cost as casting a vote for a nominee. … I never claimed it “has the same political cost”, merely that if they had for some reason wanted to vote on Garland, Senator McConnell, by himself, could not have prevented that from happening. He had the consent / support of the majority to do what he did. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/180 "2019-06-05T09:15:28Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Did you just admit that the Senate did not provide advice and consent, as required by the Constitution? This seems breathtakingly wrong. Clearly the Senate isn’t “required by the Constitution” to provide consent; even you seem fine with the idea of the Senate voting down a nominee. But if you grant that the Senate _isn’t_ required to provide consent, then why would you think the Senate would be required to provide advice and consent? Near as I can tell, it’s the President who was “required by the Constitution” to get that consent, if he wanted to do X; that doesn’t mean the Senate is required to provide him with it, the whole _point_ is that they might not provide that consent. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833.md?page=10)